Banning Abortion Bans

On June 1st, 2010, the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project and Law Students for Reproductive Justice co-hosted a series of panels and discussions called the 2010 Summer Intern Training on Reproductive Rights Law & Justice. Around 20 students attended the event, which explored current trends in the reproductive justice movement from a legal perspective. The first, and perhaps the most controversial, activity was called “Next Wave of Abortion Restrictions: Banning Abortions Based on the Sex or Race of the Fetus.” Miriam Yeung, Executive Director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, Staff Attorney for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, explained that conservative legislators such as Congressman Trent Franks, R-Ariz., are pushing sex and race selection abortion bans in federal and state legislatures.

Given the controversial nature of these proposals, the presenters decided to have each participant stand along a line representing a continuum based on how strongly he or she agreed or disagreed with a particular statement. It seemed that none of us could come to a consensus about any of the questions: Does sex-selection abortion rely on or enforce gender stereotypes? Is it natural to want to balance sex representation in a family? Is choosing the sex or physical characteristics of a fetus any different from stating one’s preferences on an adoption form? Many of us stood somewhere in the middle of the continuum, floundering between a simple “yes” or “no.”

Despite the ethical ambiguity of these questions, though, we were able to conclude that the bans currently being proposed purport to have the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and women in mind but instead are likely to drive a wedge between abortion providers, who are criminalized by the legislation, and women who seek to exercise their reproductive rights. For example, when faced with the penalty for performing an abortion that is sought based on the sex or race of the fetus, risk-averse providers may stop asking any questions about the reasons for having an abortion, which could lead to problematic diagnoses. These legislative efforts, in fact, have much in common with the billboard ads in Georgia proclaiming that “blacks are an endangered species”: both use the language of reproductive justice to infringe on a woman’s right to choose and create a cunning political and legal trap for those who seek to ensure reproductive freedoms for all women.

So what does this mean for Latinas and reproductive justice? Of course, not all Latinas will agree on the answers to all of the questions posed above, but we should all oppose misguided, insincere efforts to curb our reproductive freedoms. Although Illinois and Pennsylvania have upheld laws that allow providers to question the motivation of a woman seeking an abortion since 1975 and 1982, respectively, this issue has now earned serious media attention and could impact a woman’s right to make informed decisions for herself and her family. Many reproductive justice organizations have pointed out that concern for racial minorities and women has not informed Congressman Franks’ legislative decision-making in debates on any other issue, attempting to derail this movement before it attains legal force. I am still not sure where I stand on the continua we created during the 2010 Summer Intern Training, but I do know that we cannot allow the disingenuous proposals of some lawmakers to infringe on the reproductive freedoms of Latinas and of all women.

Like this:

Related

4 Responses

Thank you for the posting! This blog is an important voice in that you report on topics that aren’t normally featured in the mainstream press, from a social justice perspective. Please keep up the great work!

Great post, Nicole! I suspect that these conservative, anti-choice legislators are cherry-picking certain statistics that show women of color obtaining more abortions than white women, in certain areas. Then, it’s easy to mischaracterize the data and claim that these women of color are being somehow targeted by racist abortion clinics. Just another way to increase stigma and leave indigent women out of the conversation…

I think the most interesting topic of this was how our own family values and ideas influenced how we felt about the banning abortions based on the sex and/or race of fetus. It was also interesting when we started to discuss IVF and adoptions and how people are given the opportunity to elect the gender and race. And what exactly the difference between the two were. I think the more we talk about these topics, the more awereness we will be able to create.